9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to rejection of import license application based on age of printing machine and availability of spare parts. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in printing works, applied for an import license to import a printing machine, 'Heidelberg GTO 125/8X18' of 1975 make. The application was rejected by the 2nd respondent citing the machine's age and potential difficulty in procuring spare parts. The petitioner challenged this rejection, arguing that the machine's residual life was certified to be satisfactory for over 10-12 years, and spare parts were available as per the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The petitioner contended that the rejection was arbitrary and against the import policy. The import policy allows the import of printing machinery under certain conditions, barring machinery with a residual life of less than five years or over 10 years old. The machine in question satisfied the import policy requirements as per the Chartered Engineer's certificate. The Central Government's guidelines discourage the import of very old machinery due to technological advancements and spare parts availability concerns. However, the guidelines do not align with the import policy, and the machine met the policy criteria. The impugned order failed to consider the Chartered Engineer's certificate regarding the machine's condition and residual life, making it arbitrary and not in line with the import policy. The 2nd respondent's discretion in granting import licenses must adhere to the norms of the import policy; otherwise, it amounts to an abuse of power. In this case, the refusal to grant the import license was unjustified, and the petitioner's plea was upheld, quashing the rejection and remitting the application for reconsideration within a specified timeframe. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the rejection order and directing the 2nd respondent to review the import license application within one month. No costs were awarded, and the order was to be communicated within two weeks.
|
